The Witness-Bearer Within Us

“My conscience bears witness with me in holy spirit.”​—Rom. 9:1.

1, 2. (a) Why should we be very interested in learning about the witness-bearer within us? (b) What is this witness-bearer, and with what is it associated?

WE ALL have a witness-bearer within us. It can greatly aid us in making decisions that seriously affect both our present and future happiness. Actually, this witness-bearer contributes testimony in trials involving our very life. And the way we respond to its voice unavoidably affects the lives of others. This makes all the more tragic the fact that it can become a perverted witness. It can supply misleading testimony or even fail completely to speak out at critical times.

² What is this witness-bearer? It is our conscience. (2 Cor. 1:12) In English, “conscience” basically means the same as the Greek term (sy·neiʹde·sis) used by inspired Bible writers. It means “co-knowledge” or “having knowledge of something with [oneself].” It is the voice of what Bible writers refer to as “the secret self,” “the man we are inside,” “the secret person of the heart.” (Ps. 51:6; 2 Cor. 4:16; 1 Pet. 3:4; compare Romans 7:22.) Have you ever used expressions such as, “In my heart I felt it was the right thing to do”? Or, “I would like to do what you ask but something inside me says ‘No”’? This is conscience speaking, our inward realization or sense of right and wrong.

3, 4. How does our conscience ‘bear witness’? And how can it guide us morally?

³ How is it a “witness-bearer”? In that it testifies either against or in favor of our conduct as measuring up to moral standards, either accusing or excusing us. It can be a valuable moral safety factor because it can inflict pain when it condemns, or bring pleasure when it approves.

⁴ For example, after David performed an act of disrespect toward King Saul, the record says that “David’s heart kept striking him.” (1 Sam. 24:5; compare 2 Samuel 24:10.) His conscience condemned him. Following another serious misdeed, David suffered the pangs of a guilty conscience. As he himself relates: “When I kept silent my bones wore out through my groaning all day long. For day and night [God’s] hand was heavy upon me. My life’s moisture has been changed as in the dry heat of summer.” But when he finally confessed his wrong to God and gained His pardon, David experienced relief and joy. His conscience was put at ease, made clean again.​—Ps. 32:1-5; compare Ps. 32 verses 10, 11.

GOD’S WISDOM SEEN IN HUMAN CONSCIENCE

5-8. (a) Why did God not need to give the first humans an extensive and detailed law code? (b) Even when new situations and circumstances should arise, how could they determine what the right course to take would be? (c) Give examples as to how the faculty of conscience would act in them.

⁵ At the beginning of mankind’s history, Jehovah God did not surround the first humans with rules to control every minute detail and facet of life. His general instructions and the one negative command he gave them can be summed up in a few lines in the Bible. (Gen. 1:28-30; 2:15-17) Why was no extensive code of law necessary?

⁶ Jehovah God created his human creatures with intelligent minds and with hearts possessed of moral sense. By the cooperation of mind and heart the faculty of conscience results. Man’s conscience has its source in the fact that man was made in God’s own ‘image and likeness,’ not in a physical sense, obviously, but in a moral likeness. (Gen. 1:26, 27; compare 2 Corinthians 3:18.) Thus, the faculty of conscience was implanted in humans from creation forward.

⁷ Instead of giving laws spelling out and defining every detail of right and wrong, God could fortify man’s moral sense by revealing His personality, ways and standards to man. Thereby God would provide principles to guide his human children. As they grew in knowledge, understanding and appreciation of him, their conscience or moral sense would enable them to apply these principles to whatever circumstance might arise.

⁸ God, for example, had no need to give Adam a formal law telling him not to beat his wife or throw stones at her, or forbidding the slaughtering of animal and bird life just for the “sport” of it. Why, all around the human pair they could see evidence of their Creator’s love, his generosity, consideration and kindness. They could see it in the marvelous, versatile bodies he gave them, the beauty and rich variety of their environment, the delights he had provided for all their senses​—smell, taste, touch, sight and hearing. (Ps. 139:14; 104:10-24; Eccl. 3:11) How much more potent an appeal to righteousness and goodness should this make to human hearts than a mere decree! God’s love for them set the pattern for the human pair’s dealings with each other. It provided the basis for their conscience to speak out against cruelty or inconsiderateness of any kind.

SIN INTRODUCES INTERNAL CONFLICT

9. What effect would disobedience have on the perfect man, and why?

⁹ Since he was created in God’s likeness, for Adam to reflect his Father’s qualities, to ‘mirror’ his Creator by right conduct, would be the normal, natural thing for Adam to do. Yet he was free, as a moral agent, to make his own choice. If given a choice between acting in harmony with God’s personality and ways or acting contrary thereto, Adam could take either course. But only by choosing the harmonious course could man “feel right” about the matter. To take a contrary course would “go against the grain,” producing internal disturbance in man.

10. How does the account at Genesis 3:6-11 show that Adam had a witness-bearer within him?

¹⁰ The historical records bear this out. When Adam and his wife violated the one negative command God gave them, they suffered internal upheaval. They began experiencing feelings of guilt, anxiety, shame and insecurity. When his Creator spoke to him, Adam admitted an attempt to hide, out of fear. It was as if a built-in lie detector were at work in him, providing just cause for God’s immediately asking: “From the tree from which I commanded you not to eat have you eaten?” Indeed, a witness-bearer within man was testifying to that very conclusion.​—Gen. 3:6-11.

11, 12. What other force now became part of human nature, and what effect does it have on man’s moral nature and conscience?

¹¹ From that point forward man has had two opposing forces working within him. Though made originally in God’s image, he now became sinful, imperfect. Sin marred humans’ reflection of their Creator’s “likeness,” it produced a flaw inherited by all Adam’s descendants, with none being able to free themselves from it by their own efforts. The tendency toward wrongdoing now became part of human nature. But did it wipe out or replace the inner sense of right and wrong called conscience? No, this continued as also part of human nature. So​—particularly when faced with moral issues and decisions—​humans experience an internal conflict because of these opposing forces inside them.

¹² But with sin operating in them, could human conscience still function satisfactorily without a detailed law code to control it? Yes, as the historical record shows.

CONSCIENCE KEEPS FUNCTIONING WITHOUT LAW CODE

13, 14. Even with sin in the picture, what shows that human conscience could function properly without a law code?

¹³ Not until after the Flood do we find a stated law about murder. (Gen. 9:5, 6) So, then, did people prior thereto feel free to kill with no sense of guilt? By no means.

¹⁴ In Eden, human death was revealed by God to be for violators of his will. (Gen. 2:16, 17) Logically, then, death should come only as the penalty for sin, and God, as the known Life-Giver, should be the one to designate those meriting death. So, what happened when Cain allowed sin to cause him to kill his brother in heated anger? No stated law condemned murder; yet Cain’s conscience testified against him, as seen by his evasiveness when he was questioned by God. (Gen. 4:3-9) Later, the conscience of Cain’s descendant Lamech evidently excused him for killing a young man who wounded him. Lamech pleaded self-defense, apparently claiming immunity against any revenger of the man’s death. Why? Because he knew of God’s promise of action against any attempted avenger in Cain’s case and felt his own case far more justifiable than Cain’s. (Gen. 4:17, 18, 23, 24) So, humans were never without principles and precedents to guide their consciences.

15. How could people’s consciences testify against rebellion toward headship, against indolence, sexual immorality and similar wrongs, with only the history of Genesis 1:26 to 4:16 as a basis?

¹⁵ People knew the principle of headship, for God had made known his own headship in Eden and had designated man’s headship over woman. Without laws condemning idleness, they knew that man should work in caring for God’s earthly provisions. This, too, was revealed in Eden. Before the Law covenant with Israel specifically condemned homosexuality, adultery and rape, they realized that sexual unions were to be between man and woman and that such unions were not to be temporary (as in fornication or adultery) but lasting, in a family relationship with the united ones ‘leaving father and mother’ to enter such enduring relationship, as “one flesh.” (Gen. 2:24; note also Joseph’s course; Gen. 39:7-9) Without any laws against trespassing or stealing, they could appreciate the principle of ownership rights, in view of God’s command regarding the trees in Eden. Without statutes against fraud, cheating, slander, false accusation, they could see the bad results that came from the first lie.​—Gen. 1:26–4:16.

16. Would varying circumstances or new situations change this?

¹⁶ So, even if no law code was given with specific decrees and rules, people had principles and precedents to guide them and to equip their consciences to act as true witness-bearers. The situations might differ from person to person, variations of circumstances might arise, yet they could draw upon those principles to arrive at right conclusions, to make wise decisions. In the centuries following, and even prior to the giving of the Law covenant to Israel, God’s dealings with men and his expressions provided further revelation for those still striving to reflect his likeness.

17. Show how Jesus and his apostles demonstrated the value of these principles and precedents as guides to righteousness.

¹⁷ In the first century of the Common Era, Jesus and his apostles called on these early principles and precedents in advocating the righteous view to take in regard to such matters as divorce, persecution and slander, wifely submission to a husband, homicide.​—Matt. 19:3-9; John 8:43-47; 1 Tim. 2:11-14; 1 John 3:11, 12.

18. (a) What kind of people make formal, specific laws needful as deterrents? (b) Contrast these with the person who genuinely loves righteousness.

¹⁸ All of this helps us to appreciate the rightness of the apostle Paul’s statement that “law is promulgated, not for a righteous man, but for persons lawless and unruly, ungodly and sinners, lacking loving-kindness, and profane, murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, manslayers, fornicators, men who lie with males, kidnappers, liars, false swearers, and whatever other thing is in opposition to the healthful teaching.” (1 Tim. 1:9, 10) The man who has a genuine love of righteousness in his heart does not need specific laws condemning such things to cause him to abstain from them. If he is sincerely striving to manifest God’s “likeness” and to ‘walk with Him’ he will repudiate all such practices. On the other hand, if any person is lacking that righteous desire, specific laws with penalties attached for the violator may act as a deterrent​—but they will never fully succeed in preventing his engaging in wrongdoing. Human history gives abundant evidence of this.

THE LAW COVENANT AND CHRISTIAN CONSCIENCE

19. What several purposes did the Law covenant given to Israel serve?

¹⁹ In time Jehovah God gave a full set of laws and regulations to the nation of Israel. While this served as a deterrent to wrongdoing and also provided valuable insight into God’s standards and qualities, Jehovah had a greater, more farsighted purpose in giving this law code. God gave it to Israel “to make transgressions manifest,” so that they, although his chosen people, could lay no claim to righteousness on the basis of their own merit and works. Their inability to keep perfectly that law exposed to full view their sinfulness and powerfully demonstrated their need of the ransom provision God would make through Christ Jesus. Simultaneously, the Law contained ‘shadows’ or foregleams of God’s future purposes and the means for carrying these out.​—Gal. 3:19; Rom. 3:19, 20, 24.

20. (a) How does the new covenant differ from the Law covenant? (b) Why does the absence of a detailed law code not allow for lower standards among Christians?

²⁰ Even while that Law code was still in force, however, Jehovah foretold his making a new covenant with persons who would have his law put “within them,” not through some engraved or printed law code, but ‘written on their hearts.’ (Jer. 31:33) That new covenant was made with spiritual Israel, the Christian congregation. They are not under the Law code given Israel. (Gal. 4:4, 5; Heb. 8:7-13) Does this absence of such a detailed law code allow for a lower standard of morality among Christians? No, to the contrary, Christianity calls for even higher standards, as Jesus’ own teachings showed. (Matt. 5:21, 22, 27, 28, 31-48) And it clearly calls for greater exercise of conscience. As Christians we are tested as to whether we have God’s ways ‘written on our hearts’ or not. Our not being placed under a detailed law code puts us to the test as to what is really in our hearts.

21. As Christians, what knowledge should form the basis for the testimony our conscience gives us? Must scriptures be in the form of a direct command, prohibition or specific law to have a molding effect on our conscience?

²¹ Of course, as Christians we have both the inspired Hebrew and Greek Scriptures giving us splendid insight into God’s personality, his ways and standards, purposes and will. In them we have the records of the words and deeds of God’s Son who came to earth and revealed or “explained” his Father to men, that through him we can “fully know the Father.” (John 1:18; Matt. 11:27) So, then, even though the specific laws and commands given to us as Christians may be few as compared with the Law covenant and its hundreds of statutes and regulations, we are far better equipped to know how to act in the ‘likeness and image of God.’ In reality, we are responsible for ALL that we know about God, and ALL such knowledge should have its effect on our conscience, whether it is stated as a direct command, law or prohibition for Christians or not.

SHOULD RULES REPLACE INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCE?

22. What would some like the governing body of the Christian congregation to do, and why is this not complied with?

²² But many persons are not satisfied with this. They still want to have explicit rules made, precise lines drawn, beyond what God’s Word sets forth. So, should the governing body of the Christian congregation today assume the responsibility for supplying an exhaustive set of rules to cover every conceivable situation? No, for this would be complying with a wrong point of view, a view similar to that which prevailed among the Jews during Jesus’ earthly ministry, though not beginning nor ending then.

23, 24. Who had a similar concern for specific rulings? Give examples.

²³ It was the Pharisees and other religious leaders who fostered such attitude. Above and beyond the Law covenant they built up a supplementary code of traditions and rules, attempting to cover every minor aspect of the application of the Law covenant. Each restriction contained in the Law was thereby split into a multitude of lesser restrictions.

²⁴ For example, the sabbath law forbade the doing of work on the seventh day. But what is included in “work”? These religious leaders tried to define with extreme precision what such “work” embraced. Plucking of grain to eat (such as the apostles did on a sabbath day) was ruled to be a form of reaping, hence “work” forbidden on the sabbath. (Mark 2:23, 24) One tradition ruled that even to catch a flea on the sabbath was wrong because it was a form of hunting. Technicalities were abundant. One ruling held that ‘if a man tore garments or set fire to objects with the sole intention of destroying them, he was not guilty of violating the sabbath. But if he destroyed them with a view to later improvement (as in destroying a building in order to rebuild it) he was to be punished.’​—The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1909, Vol. X, p. 599; compare Matthew 15:4-6; 23:16-19.

25. (a) What was dangerous about setting down such complex set of rulings? (b) What did Jesus say about this course?

²⁵ What was the dangerous, damaging effect of trying to spell out with such hairline precision the application of each law? M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia recognizes the real menace this course of the religious leaders presented, saying that they “sought to observe painfully the letter of the law, and to confide as little as possible to the judgment and conscience of individuals.” (Vol. IX, p. 191; italics ours.) What the religious leaders did was, in effect, to superimpose their own conscience, scruples and personal preferences and prejudices on all the rest of the people. Jesus likened this adding of traditions to the Mosaic law to placing “heavy loads” on the shoulders of men and he warned that this elevating of human traditions to ‘a par with the Scriptures resulted in making God’s Word invalid. (Matt. 15:1-9; 23:1-4) Jesus told the religious leaders who condemned his disciples for plucking grain on the sabbath, “If you had understood what this means, ‘I want mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless ones.”​—Matt. 12:1-7.

26. What example shows how traditional rulings hindered the Jews from exercising their consciences correctly? And what effect did it have on their hearts?

²⁶ Later, in a synagogue, Jesus appealed to their consciences in applying God’s law. The Law covenant said nothing about efforts made to care for the sick on the sabbath, but Jewish tradition allowed this only where the person’s life was in danger. Confronted with a man having a withered hand and having the question thrown at him by the religious leaders as to whether it was ‘lawful to cure on the sabbath’ or not, Jesus asked, ‘What man among you having one sheep would not lift it out of a pit if it fell therein on the sabbath? Really, of how much more worth is a man than a sheep! Is it lawful to do a good deed, a fine deed, on the sabbath?’ But they refused to exercise their consciences; they remained silent. Jesus then became indignant, “being thoroughly grieved at the insensibility of their hearts,” and he proceeded to heal the man.​—Matt. 12:9-13; Mark 3:1-5.

27. (a) Why is it wrong to want someone else to make our personal decisions for us in moral matters? (b) What questions now arise, to be considered in the following article?

²⁷ To want someone, an elder or body of elders in a congregation, or the governing body of the Christian congregation to set forth a code of laws beyond what the Bible contains, therefore betrays a wrong attitude. In matters where God’s Word calls on us to exercise the faculty of conscience​—of judgment, insight, discernment and wisdom—​we should not try to put the responsibility on someone else by getting him to issue a ‘ruling.’ We may wisely seek counsel and guidance​—yet what is said cannot go beyond that nor should we wish it to. But how can we have assurance that this “witness-bearer” within us is giving right testimony? How can we keep its voice strong and clear? Read the next article for the answers to these questions.

“Recommending Ourselves to Every Human Conscience in the Sight of God”

1. Why is the faculty of conscience not a sure guide in itself?

ONE’S having the faculty of conscience is not enough. Of itself it is not a sure guide in life. This is because it is part of us, closely tied in with our hearts and is affected by the interaction of both heart and mind. So according to what we ourselves are, what we have in our heart and mind, the voice of this “witness-bearer” will be either muffled or clear, its testimony will either be sound, reliable and true or be defective, misleading, even downright false.

2. What examples illustrate how the conscience can bear wrong testimony?

² Christ Jesus, for example, warned his disciples that “the hour is coming when everyone that kills you will imagine he has rendered a sacred service to God.” (John 16:2) Saul of Tarsus was one of these. In his zeal for what he conscientiously believed to be right, Saul ‘committed many acts of opposition against the name of Jesus,’ persecuting the disciples, and ‘when they were to be executed, he cast his vote against them.’ (Acts 26:9, 10; compare Galatians 1:13, 14.) Yet later, when experiencing persecution himself as the Christian apostle Paul, he could say in court: “I have behaved before God with a perfectly clear conscience down to this day.” (Acts 23:1) Though his conscience had been “clear” at the time of his fighting against Christianity, its testimony had been defective, woefully false and had led him into fighting against God. What was wrong?

NEED FOR KNOWLEDGE AND GOD’S SPIRIT

3. Why is Bible knowledge essential for the conscience to bear good witness?

³ “I was ignorant and acted with a lack of faith,” Paul answers. (1 Tim. 1:13) If our conscience is to aid us on the way to life everlasting, we need to study diligently God’s Word, the Sacred Scriptures. Why? Because through knowledge of the Bible and by application of it in our lives we can come to know Jehovah God, know his personality, ways and purposes. Without a clear vision of Him we cannot possibly reflect his qualities and standards, and the voice of our conscience will be blurred, indistinct and confused.

4. (a) What other help is needed? (b) Illustrate this. (c) What do we learn from the scriptures cited at the end of this paragraph?

⁴ We also need to seek continually Jehovah God’s spirit, praying unceasingly for it. The apostle spoke of his conscience as ‘bearing witness with him in holy spirit,’ and it is by the spirit of God operating on our enlightened and Scripture-trained minds and hearts that we can be assured of correct testimony from the witness-bearer within us. (Rom. 9:1) We can illustrate this by a child who has been brought up by a loving father, one who carefully instilled in his son certain principles and standards, not only by word, but also by example. Now suppose, on an occasion when the child is away from his father, someone endeavors to get the child to engage in an act contrary to his father’s principles. Perhaps the precise act suggested was never mentioned by the child’s father. The person tempting the child to perform the act may even say, “Did your father ever specifically say you couldn’t do this?” The answer may be, “No, he did not.” And yet the child may reject the proposal, saying, “Even though my father never mentioned it, I just know he wouldn’t want me to do it​—I know he wouldn’t like it!” Even without a specific command, the boy knows what to do. Why? Because he has the spirit of his father, he knows his father’s attitude on the matter. In similar ways we can come to know Jehovah’s attitude with the help of his Word and that of his Son and by the holy spirit.​—Compare 1 Corinthians 2:16; also the example of Paul’s “spirit” as guiding the congregation at Corinth, as recorded at 1 Corinthians 5:3-5.

5, 6. (a) Why are Christians led by God’s spirit “not under law”? (b) What, then, is included in the ‘law written on Christian hearts’?

⁵ Of the person led by God’s spirit, the apostle says: “If you are being led by spirit, you are not under law . . . the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control. Against such things there is no law.” (Gal. 5:18, 22, 23) How is it that they are “not under law”?

⁶ Christ Jesus showed that the entire Law code given to Israel rested on two basic commands: Love of God with all one’s heart, mind, soul and strength, and love of one’s neighbor as of oneself. (Matt. 22:36-40) The apostle Paul also says that the laws against adultery, murder, stealing, covetousness, “and whatever other commandment there is, is summed up in this word, namely ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does not work evil to one’s neighbor; therefore love is the law’s fulfillment.” (Rom. 13:9, 10) Are we governed by that love of God and neighbor and do we have accurate knowledge of God’s Word and strong faith? Then even without an extensive code of regulations, rules and restrictions, we can stay on the pathway of righteousness, because we have God’s law ‘written on our hearts.’ (Heb. 10:16) “Law” means, basically, a ‘rule of conduct.’ All that we learn about God, both by study and by his dealings with us, becomes our rule of conduct or “law.” When this is so, then our conscience bears good, reliable testimony to guide us.

WEAK CONSCIENCES AND STRONG ONES

7, 8. In what way was the conscience of certain Corinthian Christians ‘weak,’ and what was a basic cause?

⁷ But even with baptized Christians, this is not always the case. Some have ‘strong’ consciences, others have ‘weak’ ones, as is seen in Paul’s first letter to the congregation at Corinth. In that city, meat that had been offered to an idol by the pagan Corinthians was commonly sold in the city’s meat markets. The conscience of some Christians would not let them eat such meat without feeling guilt. Was this testimony of their conscience correct? If not, why not?

⁸ Those Christians lacked accurate knowledge and discernment of righteous principles. Paul explained that the pagan idols were really “nothing” since there is “no God but one,” the Creator. Therefore the meat could not really come to belong to the idol since it had no genuine living existence and hence no power to receive or possess such meat. The meat remained under the ownership of the One who rightfully ‘owns the earth and all that is in it,’ Jehovah God.​—1 Cor. 8:1-6; compare 10:25, 26.

9. (a) What other factors can produce a weak conscience? (b) Why would eating meat offered to idols ‘defile’ the consciences of such ones?

⁹ But something else was causing their consciences to give incorrect testimony. After saying, “Nevertheless, there is not this knowledge in all persons,” Paul adds, “but some, being accustomed until now to the idol, eat food as something sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.” (1 Cor. 8:7) This shows that our background, environment, the customs, beliefs and attitudes of the people among whom we grew up​—all these can also affect the testimony of our conscience. Many Corinthians had practiced idol worship before becoming Christians. Evidently from force of habit they still felt a consciousness of worship associated with meat that had been offered in idolatrous sacrifice. So, for them to eat would, as Paul said, ‘defile their conscience.’ In time, knowledge could have a healthful, enlightening effect on their conscience, ‘readjusting’ their outlook, aiding them to overcome their past prejudices, fears, wrong beliefs and viewpoints.​—2 Cor. 13:11.

‘WE OUGHT NOT TO BE PLEASING OURSELVES’

10. How could those with strong consciences ‘build up’ the consciences of the others in a wrong way?

¹⁰ But meanwhile what should those Christians do whose consciences were not weak, who had knowledge of right principles and the correct viewpoint of the matter? Should they belittle the doubts of those with a weak conscience? Should they go ahead and do whatever their consciences allowed with no concern for the weak consciences of others, assuming that their own boldness in the matter would serve to strengthen the others’ weak consciences? Paul says that love should dictate to us, for “knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” the ones showing it. (1 Cor. 8:1) They should guard lest exercising their “authority” or right (to eat such meat as no longer having a worshipful connection) should “somehow become a stumbling block to those who are weak.” Yes, if they ate meat known to have been sacrificed it could have the effect of ‘building up’ the conscience of weak ones, building them up, not in a healthful way, but so that their conscience swung to the opposite extreme. What? That of actually eating meat in religious ceremony connected with idolatry, or at least eating it in spite of a consciousness of worship. This the governing body of the Christian congregation had condemned, by guidance of the holy spirit.​—1 Cor. 8:9, 10; Acts 15:28, 29.

11. Why is the person “already condemned” who does not act according to faith?

¹¹ Even if the conscience of a person is overly restrictive, no one should presume to override that conscience or try to argue the person into going against it. As the apostle’s corresponding discussion in his letter to the Romans shows, if a person were to eat meat while having doubts as to the rightness of the act, “he is already condemned . . . because he does not eat out of faith.” The Christian who acts according to faith has a clean conscience; but if he acts without faith that what he is doing is proper, then his conscience is not clean, for, though feeling that the act is contrary to God’s will, he does it anyway.​—Rom. 14:5, 14, 23.

12. Why, then, is faith so essential for us to have a conscience that will give proper guidance?

¹² A strong faith makes for a good conscience, one that speaks up boldly, correctly, not failing to bear needed witness at critical times. Faith not only gives confidence; it produces loyalty to truth and righteousness. The Christian who has built up strong faith by knowledge and sincere application of it, by genuine appreciation and trust, will be loyal. While his conscience may permit him to do things that those with weak faith scruple against doing, at the same time he will not be excusing himself in wrongdoing.​—Gal. 5:13.

13. Why is it so vitally important for us to show love in considering the consciences of others and governing our conduct thereby?

¹³ But love must always control. This governing principle is stressed by Paul when he says: “We, though, who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those not strong, and not to be pleasing ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor in what is good for his upbuilding.” (Rom. 15:1, 2) Showing how serious a matter it is for the one with strong faith to fail to show consideration for those who are weak in matters of conscience, Paul warns: “If because of food your brother is being grieved, you are no longer walking in accord with love. Do not by your food ruin that one for whom Christ died.” “When you people thus sin against your brothers and wound their conscience that is weak, you are sinning against Christ.” (Rom. 14:15; 1 Cor. 8:11, 12) What is said regarding eating and drinking can be said regarding matters of dress, entertainment, employment and all other facets of human living.​—Rom. 14:21.

14. How must there be a balance in the attitude of both those whose consciences are very restrictive and those whose consciences are not so restrictive? What principles should both classes always keep in mind?

¹⁴ Just as it is wrong for the one with strong faith to belittle those who are overscrupulous or try to superimpose his conscience on theirs, so it is also wrong for the scrupulous one to judge or censure those exercising Christian freedom. “We shall all stand before the judgment seat of God,” says Paul, and then “each of us will render an account for himself to God.” “Why should it be that my freedom is judged by another person’s conscience?” (Rom. 14:3-12; 1 Cor. 10:29, 30) Yet, though convinced of certain ‘rights’ or “authority” on the basis of God’s Word, the Christian guided by love will not ‘look for his own interests,’ insisting on his rights and pleasing himself to the hurt of others, but will imitate Christ, who “did not please himself” in a selfish, inconsiderate way.​—1 Cor. 8:9; 13:4, 5; Rom. 15:3.

DEFILED CONSCIENCES

15, 16. What is the difference between a weak conscience and one that is defiled? Illustrate this from the Scriptures.

¹⁵ It is one thing to have a conscience that is weak due to lack of knowledge. It is quite another thing to have a defiled conscience because of rejecting truth or following a course that goes contrary to one’s conscience.

¹⁶ Paul called for loving considerateness toward overscrupulous Christians in Rome and Corinth, those manifesting ‘weakness of faith.’ But he instructed Titus to ‘reprove with severity’ men in Crete who were not “healthy in the faith.” Why? Because they were not just being overscrupulous due to lack of knowledge. These men were setting themselves up as teachers of their views, contradicting the spirit-directed decision of the governing body on circumcision. Both their minds and their consciences were defiled. Their works manifested this.​—Rom. 14:1; Titus 1:9-15.

17. (a) What grave consequences can result from failing to keep a clean conscience toward God? (b) How does Ephesians 4:20 present another aid to our reflecting Jehovah’s ‘image and likeness’?

¹⁷ To follow a deliberate course of wrong can lead to one’s conscience becoming marked or seared “as with a branding iron.” (1 Tim. 4:2) Some of such in Paul’s day had “thrust aside” faith and a good conscience and experienced “shipwreck” of their faith, becoming blasphemers of God’s faithful servants and His truth. (1 Tim. 1:19, 20) A Christian could go back to being like the people of the world, who are “in darkness mentally, and alienated from the life that belongs to God.” Due to their ignorance and the insensibility of their hearts they “come to be past all moral sense,” their conscience excuses them in all sorts of loose conduct, uncleanness and greediness. But, as Paul adds, “you did not learn the Christ to be so.” (Eph. 4:17-20) God’s Son provided us a Model and Example by which our consciences can be trained to bear proper witness.

APPEALING TO THE CONSCIENCES OF OTHERS

18-20. (a) Describe some of the ways in which Paul appealed to the consciences of those he served. (b) According to what he wrote the Thessalonians and Corinthians, was he satisfied simply to believe that ‘God knows my heart is right in the things I do’?

¹⁸ Certainly we should want to avoid defiling our consciences, to the injury of ourselves and others. Like the apostle Paul we should be able to say: “Our conscience bears witness, that with holiness and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom but with God’s undeserved kindness, we have conducted ourselves in the world, but more especially toward you.”​—2 Cor. 1:12.

¹⁹ Review some of the ways Paul appealed to the consciences of those he served. He sought neither prominence, praise nor power over them. None of the apostles worked harder than he, yet he was far from assigning himself special privileges or seeking the best in material comforts as being ‘what was due him.’ He even refrained from making use of his due rights in many ways.​—1 Cor. 9:3-18; 15:10.

²⁰ His attitude was not, ‘I am the apostle to the Gentiles appointed by God’s own Son so I am not concerned about what anyone thinks. What I do is between me and God. I know I’m right; so let others accept it and not question it.’ Having authority, he was not authoritarian. Rather than showing off a powerful personality to persuade, he appealed to people’s consciences in love. He reminds those in Thessalonica that he and his companions were ‘gentle as a nursing mother,’ in tender affection imparting “not only the good news of God, but also our own souls, because you became beloved to us.” He and his associates willingly labored in secular work night and day so as not to put an expensive burden on others. The Thessalonians, he says, thereby became “witnesses, God is also, how loyal and righteous and unblamable we proved to be.” (1 Thess. 2:5-10) While confident that his heart was manifest to God, Paul told those in Corinth, “I hope that we have been made manifest also to your consciences.”​—2 Cor. 5:10-12.

21, 22. (a) Is it enough to recommend ourselves to God and the consciences of our brothers? (b) Why is it vital to appeal to the consciences of those to whom we bear the good news of the Kingdom?

²¹ In this same letter to the Corinthians, Paul states that he and his companions had “renounced the underhanded things of which to be ashamed, not walking with cunning, neither adulterating the word of God, but by making the truth manifest recommending ourselves to every human conscience in the sight of God.” Along with a clean conscience toward God and our brothers, as Christians we should also seek to have a clean conscience toward “every human conscience,” including those in the world of mankind. (2 Cor. 4:2) Are we doing this?

²² We should never doubt that the progress and success of the preaching of the good news of God’s kingdom depend greatly on our “recommending ourselves to every human conscience” by maintaining a good conscience ourselves, both congregationally and individually. It is not enough to preach and teach Bible truths to others. Along with this​—in fact, as part of our preaching and teaching—​we must appeal to their consciences. They cannot see our hearts as God can, but we can endeavor to make manifest what is in our hearts​—our sincerity, our honesty, our purity of motive, our unselfish love. However, can we do this if we ourselves fail to practice what we preach?

23. What should move us to seek never to be a cause for stumbling toward those to whom we preach and teach?

²³ How concerned are we for the everlasting welfare of those around us, not only our families and our spiritual brothers, but also our neighbors, our fellow townspeople and countrymen? Paul wrote: “I am telling the truth in Christ; I am not lying, since my conscience bears witness with me in holy spirit, that I have great grief and unceasing pain in my heart . . . in behalf of my brothers, my relatives according to the flesh, who, as such, are Israelites.” (Rom. 9:1-4) He showed his concern by striving to maintain conduct that would appeal to their conscience, by seeking never to be needlessly repugnant to the Jewish conscience. (Compare Romans 10:1; 1 Corinthians 9:20.) How deep is our desire to aid those of our nation to gain life? How far are we willing to go to avoid being ‘causes for stumbling to others’?​—1 Cor. 10:32, 33.

24. (a) What have many of God’s servants in modern times done in order to recommend themselves to every human conscience in the sight of God? (b) What questions arise for our future consideration?

²⁴ Concern for maintaining a good conscience before God and all men has caused many of God’s servants in modern times to make major changes in their lives​—in their daily conduct and speech, their attitudes and treatment of others, their employment and business practices. They are ‘exercising themselves continually to have consciousness of committing no offense against God and men.’ (Acts 24:16) Are you doing this? What are some of the things that raise questions of conscience for God’s servants today? Where an appeal to the consciences of others calls for certain changes, do they need some specific law or command or regulation to cause them to make such change? These are questions we leave for the next issue of The Watchtower to answer.